Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Judicial Activism--Misquoting the Constitution, Overturning the People's Vote

The case can only be described as yet another arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgement of 57% of the voters in the state.

And in doing so, misquoting the Constitution.

Is it calculated deception, ignorance to what the Constitution actually says, or simply a disregard for the law? Or blind motivation to redefine marriage and the family at all and any cost?

Not only is the judge misquoting the Constitution, the New York Times and NBC News are dutifully quoting her as she misquotes the Constitution without even offering a correction.

This points to a specific problem in our judicial system, but highlights an even greater problem in our culture.

And causes one to wonder where it all can lead?


Last week, US District Judge Arenda L. Wright Davis ruled that Virginia's ban on same-sex "marriage" was unconstitutional.

Her ruling says in part, "Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us."

But it doesn't say that. In fact, that phrase is not found in the Constitution.

If you read her ruling, it is very apparent that she is advocating redefining marriage and the family from the bench, and in doing so she is misquoting the Constitution and overturning the vote of the people.

Virginians believe in marriage and voted 57% to defend traditional marriage.

Act 2 of this tragedy is that major news services are quoting the judge without even correcting or pointing out to their readers and listeners her error in "quoting" the Constitution.

The second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution.

The day following the judge's ruling and her misquoting of the Constitution, major news sources in the United States began quoting her with no attempt to even mention her misquote.

New York Times reporter Erick Eckholm wrote, "A federal judge on Thursday evening declared that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, in the strongest legal reversal yet of restrictive amendments that exist through out the South."

He continued, "Our Constitution declares that 'all men are created equal' wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. 'Surely this means all of us'."

NYT doesn't even mention the misquote, which the judge seemed to use as the foundational reason for overturning the vote of the people.

NBC News followed suit. Reporter Miranda Leitsinger also quoted the misquote without correction.

NBC quoted the judge with this: "Our Constitution declares that 'all men are created equal'. Surely this means all of us. While ever vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice."

In overturning the vote of the people, she makes it clear that she is standing against the "prejudice" of people who believe in traditional, biblical marriage. And it doesn't matter how a majority of the people vote.

Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage says, "This is another example of an Obama appointed judge twisting the Constitution and the rule of law to impose her views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia. There is no right to same-sex "marriage" in the Constitution."

Very true. It isn't there.

This is an example that reveals how the foundations of our culture are being attacked.

1. Judicial Activism and Elitism.

Notice her words "wisdom can come from the voices of the voting public" suggesting there is a possibility the people could be right, however, she is charged to "not tolerate" the voices of the people if she perceives their vote "is rooted in unlawful prejudice." In misquoting the Constitution to support her action, it is clear that she is acting arbitrarily and, I believe, doing so to advance her personal agenda.

Tony Perkins said, "This is yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgement of 57% of the voters in Virginia."

2. Relativism.

This could be characterized as "judges doing what is right in their own eyes" without restraint. Relativism, not prejudice, has been rooted in contemporary culture. Public education has taught a couple of generations that there are no absolutes, no traditional values, and that all beliefs have equal standing, therefore whatever you believe is truth.

When these beliefs are applied to a culture, it creates chaos. When they are applied to a judicial system it creates mass disregard for the law. We are seeing this as our President consistently disregards the law. We are now seeing it among activist judges appointed by this President. These activities are undermining not only marriage and family, but the very foundations and stability of our nation and the rule of law.

Relativism removes moral restraint.

And it declares documents such as the Constitution, the Declaration and others to be "living" documents, open to be revised as needed to advance secular progressive ideas, merely using the redefinition of words and their meaning.

This was evidenced in Belgium yesterday where they voted to legalize euthanasia for children of any age. All that is needed is consent of the parents.

One can only imagine where this can take that country culturally. These are their guidelines:

The child must have a terminal and incurable illness, with death expected to occur “within a brief period.” The child must also be experiencing “constant and unbearable physical suffering.” Like for adults desiring euthanasia, that diagnosis and prognosis must be agreed upon by the treating physician and an outsider brought in to give a second opinion.

The Belgium press explained how they had gotten to this place socially and morally:

Bart Sturtewagen, chief editor of De Standaard, one of the country's largest daily newspapers, said that after 12 years of legal euthanasia in the country, Belgians had grown used to it as an option for the final stages of their lives.

"I'm annoyed at hearing 'you'll kill children' in the foreign media. We don't use that kind of language anymore. It's a very different debate on a different level," he said.

When traditional, biblical values are undermined, attacked and dismissed it leads to destruction.

It's noteworthy that Mr. Sturtewagen credited their social "progress" in administering euthanasia to kids, to changing the words---changing the conversation.

God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Pro-Active. Be Blessed.

8 comments:

  1. This is typical of the Socialist party commonly called the Democratic party. What else can you expect from a Obama appointed Judge, to rewrite the Constitution in their own favor.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love this article! It shows just how desperate the anti-gay side has become in its attempt to marginalize gay people... So, the judge misquoted the Constitution, using a phrase from the Declaration of Independence instead. Hardy-har-har!

    What are supposed to take away from this? Does the Constitution not demand equal treatment of our country's citizens, even if the wording is "equal protection" and not "all men are created equal"? What exactly is your point? C'mon...

    It wasn't long ago that your side was struggling to keep domestic partnerships at bay in our state. Now marriage equality is here and is sweeping the nation through the people and the courts, and no one is even talking about domestic partnerships anymore. Yet, you're still pointing out these little mistakes and trying to create issues where none exist.

    Score 1 for you in this little, meaningless battle! The judge misquoted the Constitution! Haha! Meanwhile, we'll take the bigger victories that keep coming our way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the judge apparently knows nothing about the foundation of our country. You approve of this, hardy har har? An ignorant judge rules on the will of the people and and ignores that expressed will in the name of "equality"? There's a word for that.....b***s**** comes to mind.

      Maybe we should ignore the will of the homosexual agenda and boycott all laws and courts that expressly rule against the will of the people. Civil disobedience and boycotting the companies that support perverts and their perversion.

      Big victories? We'll see on judgement day!

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
  3. I guess that judge just considered herself to be a little more equal than the 57%, who decided that the thing that God ordained should remain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another unconstitutional judge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When I look up equality in my dictionary, it says under one definition, "having the same rights, privileges, ability, rank, etc.," and under another definition, "evenly proportioned; balanced or uniform in effect or operation."

    I wonder if that judges idea of equality is about having the same amount of homosexual marriages as one man, one woman ones.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wonder now, if a red traffic light was just as equal as a green one to a particular driver, if that judge would rule in their favor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That judge should be reassigned to traffic court.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.